How much better are elite forces than ordinary infantry ?

Beano

chopper6 wrote: »

Steely-eyed bringer of death!

Is that Windsor Davis from It Aint Half Hot Mum?

cruasder777

chopper6 wrote: »

Got any pics of yourself in action?

lots, but I don't need to prove myself to some little scrout on the net.

chopper6

cruasder777 wrote: »

lots, but I don't need to prove myself to some little scrout on the net.

Yeah...that's the airborne spirit!

Manic Moran

I just 'vanished' a couple of posts...

AbusesToilets

how very 1970's South American dictator of you Manic

Tenger

AbusesToilets wrote: »

how very 1970's South American dictator of you Manic

Proper boards.ie Mod spirit!

galwaycyclist

AbusesToilets wrote: »

how very 1970's South American dictator of you Manic

No its the fundamental problem with discussing any of these "elite" units.

If they tell you then they have to kill you.

ChicagoJoe

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really, the US Naval War College still teaches it as a case study (REF: NWC 1036).

.....and this year the US Army's Capabilities Integration Center (part of Training and Doctrine Command) re-issued it as a case study.

Leaving aside the various staff papers and theses published by Navy and Marine officers examining various aspect of the conflict.

The Dutch book "Stopping Wars and Making Peace" (2009) gives over a chapter to it.

There was also some joint Australian / Argentinian research published on it this year dealing with the air aspect of the war.

.....as well as some French research into the TV coverage.

In the last two years (based on Google Scholar) research about the war has been published in Romania (on the use of the exocet), Canada (diplomacy / expeditionary seapower), India (aircraft carriers) and Germany (signals intelligence).

Yeah sure buddy, the micro war in the South Atlantic 32 years ago is about as essential reading for an officer today as much as the Battle of Helgoland in 1864 when the Danish fleet defeated the Prussian fleet in the North Sea :rolleyes:

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Yeah sure buddy, the micro war in the South Atlantic 32 years ago is about as essential reading for an officer today as much as the Battle of Helgoland in 1864 when the Danish fleet defeated the Prussian fleet in the North Sea :rolleyes:

Why not?

Salamis is still taught at the US Naval War College, and the CNO's 'essential reading' list has two titles on it relating to the war in 1812.

.....and just for interest the Battle of Heligoland features in a RAND study I read recently ('Military Adaptation in War' 2009) commissioned by the US DoD - basically describing how setbacks like that were part of the continuum of development for the Prussians, how such events fed into the Franco-Prussian War and thence to WW1.

So it seems such events are of significant interest to modern militaries as they show how organisations learn and adapt

Stovepipe

The Falklands War was/is of great academic reading because of the sheer distance involved and the political goings-on surrounding it; a NATO member sending a task force a quarter of the way around the globe to deal with an invasion in what was regarded as an American sphere of interest, to face a supposedly well trained enemy. That war was of huge media interest and was avidly followed worldwide. From a military point of view, it involved both countries' prime air, sea and land arms, often stretching themselves to a completely new extent. If nothing else, it made for great television!

Manic Moran

Eh? I have assigned Falklands as Officer Professional Development homework to my lieutenants. It doesn't have mechanised warfare, but it has most everything else. Plus, it's a war which is small enough that the -entire- war can be realistically studied. The air, naval and land components are all within the reasonable parameters of someone to be able to read without becoming a full-time historian. It's also one of the last modern, documented wars in which both sides had a fairly viable chance of winning. It's an excellent subject for historical training.

twinytwo

cruasder777 wrote: »

I previously posted about my military experience on here in NI, the Gulf war and Croatia, I am not one to boast.

well considering not so long ago when it was pointed out to you that women couldnt serve in front line units.... you responded with the comment there is no front line in the war on terror.

ie you dont even know the definition of a front line unit

I would say the your military experience is all in your head, of at the most it could be written on a half a cereal box..... one of those small treat size ones.

cruasder777

twinytwo wrote: »

well considering not so long ago when it was pointed out to you that women couldnt serve in front line units.... you responded with the comment there is no front line in the war on terror.

ie you dont even know the definition of a front line unit

I would say the your military experience is all in your head, of at the most it could be written on a half a cereal box..... one of those small treat size ones.

Women serve in UK Special Forces and have done so since the 1970s.

Do the maths brainiac, who do you think infantry units use to search females when on patrol ?

Women do serve alongside front line combat units, just not in an infantry role.

Obviously your another who knows more then official sources.

"The programme follows a group of extraordinary young women on the frontline in Afghanistan "

http://www.army.mod.uk/events/events/18864.aspx

Victor

cruasder777 wrote: »

Also if units are all at the same level, how comes the Rifles etc are never Spearhead units. It was the marines and Paras who were first on the list for the Falklands not infantry of the line.

The Marines role in NATO doctrine was to train for deployment by sea to Norway and Denmark.

With winter coming to the South Atlantic, who were you going to send?

Stovepipe wrote: »

to face a supposedly well trained enemy.

The reality was mostly conscripts who hadn't even finished their training. They may have fared better if the war had been 6 months later.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It doesn't have mechanised warfare, but it has most everything else.

But Scorpions and Mowags!

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Women serve in UK Special Forces and have done so since the 1970s.

Do the maths brainiac, who do you think infantry units use to search females when on patrol ?

Women do serve alongside front line combat units, just not in an infantry role.

Obviously your another who knows more then official sources.

"The programme follows a group of extraordinary young women on the frontline in Afghanistan "

http://www.army.mod.uk/events/events/18864.aspx

Women might serve 'in' frontline units in the UK but not as armed participants and not as members of the infantry (or of armoured regiments) - because if they did there'd be no need for the currently ongoing review to see if the rules should be changed to allow them to carry weapons as part of the infantry, would there?

twinytwo

cruasder777 wrote: »

Women serve in UK Special Forces and have done so since the 1970s.

Do the maths brainiac, who do you think infantry units use to search females when on patrol ?

Women do serve alongside front line combat units, just not in an infantry role.

Obviously your another who knows more then official sources.

"The programme follows a group of extraordinary young women on the frontline in Afghanistan "

http://www.army.mod.uk/events/events/18864.aspx

Dear god,

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of what it is you are talking about.

There is a massive difference between seving alongcside a unit in a support role and actually being in said unit.

I mean seriously is that so hard to comprehend for someone with " such vast experience" as yourself.

cruasder777

twinytwo wrote: »

Dear god,

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of what it is you are talking about.

There is a massive difference between seving alongcside a unit in a support role and actually being in said unit.

I mean seriously is that so hard to comprehend for someone with " such vast experience" as yourself.

Are you disputing that women serve in the SRR and pass selection ? Is that not a front line unit ?

I never said women served in front line infantry units genius, I said they served alongside.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Women might serve 'in' frontline units in the UK but not as armed participants and not as members of the infantry (or of armoured regiments) - because if they did there'd be no need for the currently ongoing review to see if the rules should be changed to allow them to carry weapons as part of the infantry, would there?

You don't have a clue, women are armed when out on patrol. But they don't have an infantry role, they are medics usually, they are armed and do take part in firefights in a defensive capacity.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-female-soldier-kill-taliban-narrates-encounter-260823

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Are you disputing that women serve in the SRR and pass selection ? Is that not a front line unit ?

I never said women served in front line infantry units genius, I said they served alongside.

That's what you said.......after you edited the post.

Don't forget some us get emailed updates from boards.ie when a post is made

In case you forgot what you posted......here's what I got into my inbox at 23:19 last night.......

cruasder777 has just posted the following in the "How much better are elite forces than ordinary infantry ?" thread, in the Military forum:

"
---Quote (Originally by twinytwo)---
well considering not so long ago when it was pointed out to you that women couldnt serve in front line units.... you responded with the comment there is no front line in the war on terror.

ie you dont even know the definition of a front line unit

I would say the your military experience is all in your head, of at the most it could be written on a half a cereal box..... one of those small treat size ones.
---End Quote---


Women serve in UK Special Forces and have done so since the 1970s.

What would you know, you cannot teach stupid."

What you've 'revised' it to - isn't what you posted originally.

cruasder777

Whats inaccurate in that post ?

I deleted the insult, as its against forum rules.


Where did I say women serve in front line infantry units genius ?

Stop trying to muddy the waters, cause you don't have a clue.

Everything you say is inaccurate, its like talking to some walt down the pub lol.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Whats inaccurate in that post ?

I deleted the insult, as its against forum rules.

Nothing - it's not inaccuracy, it's the revision I'm pointing out. A revision you subsequently rely to prove you were right all along!!

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Whats inaccurate in that post ?

I deleted the insult, as its against forum rules.


Where did I say women serve in front line infantry units genius ?

Stop trying to muddy the waters, cause you don't have a clue.

Everything you say is inaccurate, its like talking to some walt down the pub lol.

ah, more retrospective revisions.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but ARRSE defines a 'walt' as a

....wannabe, bluffer, nuisance, cnut. It comes from The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, written by humorist James Thurber and published in The New Yorker in 1941. See also pointy heads and flat heads. A walt is an individual who believes, or wishes others to believe, that he or she be something he be not. They are often found bidding on 'Genuine SAS' KFS and other items on eBay and usually act the Internet Tough Guy. Outing Walts is the official sport of ARRSE. Spoken only in hushed tones are ops by the Waltenkommando commanded by the Waltfinder General.

Can you point to a single post where, for example, I've claimed to have served in any military beyond what and where I actually served? I'm sure that definition applies to others posting in this thread - but I'm unclear as to how it applies to me? Perhaps you'd enlighten me?

Also, everything I say is 'inaccurate'? - I think if one thing characterises my posts is a nearly anal obsession with posting links to objective sources - so which posts precisely do you regard as inaccurate?

collidgedosser

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Watching a series programme few months ago on training the British Royal Marines and it started to cross my mind, well to be honest, these guys didn't seem to be much different from general infantry (plenty of spotty faced 19 year olds etc). Sure they seemed to go on longer marches etc but well, it wasn't like comparing say a professional boxer to an amateur. I'm not trying to be over critical, but it strikes me that these 'elite' regiments are often talked up at the expense of the ordinary infantry regiment. I'd imagine quite a lot of guys are just happy to do their service in an ordinary infantry regiment and don't see any need to join the so called 'elite' whether it be the US Marines, Airbourne, Royal Marines or whatever.

So for arguments sake, let's say we have some imaginary scale of units and the average infantry man is rated as 100 units for his military capability, what would you rate guys from Marines, Paratroop regiments etc ?

They way to look at it is both regular and elite soldiers are human thus have the same potential, however the way they differ is the resources of time and money used in their training and also the resources available to them while in the field.
Elite soldiers are the most confident most technically skilled and have the best resources so they are asked to do the hardest or most important task or applied surgically. Making a rating for comparison isn't that realistic given the random nature of war where there are countless scenarios where a handful of recruits would eliminate an entire company of elite soldiers.
Elite soldiers are however more likely to keep their nerve in stressful situations and have a higher morale in bleak situations and as said above have multiple technical skills of different disciplines or areas all because of training
Unfortunately even the intense training doesn't change the fact that they too are meatbags just like there regularly army friends and bullets or hot metal tear through they're elite meatbags in the same way they do through regular meatbags

chopper6

cruasder777 wrote: »

In terms of professionalism, the unit with the highest percentage of those who pass SAS selection when attempted is 2 Sqn RAF Regiment, the RAF Regiments Para unit..

You're privvy to who passes SAS selection are you?

Oh i forgot...you've served in the Paras :rolleyes:

cruasder777

chopper6 wrote: »

You're privvy to who passes SAS selection are you?

Oh i forgot...you've served in the Paras :rolleyes:

Yes I am.

Never have I said I served with the Parachute regiment:rolleyes:

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Yes I am.

Never have I said I served with the Parachute regiment:rolleyes:

Given you were so quick to correct other people on the whole in / with argument......

cruasder777 wrote: »

Are you disputing that women serve in the SRR and pass selection ? Is that not a front line unit ?

I never said women served in front line infantry units genius, I said they served alongside.

......I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that @Chopper6 didn't say you served with the Paras, he was saying you served in the Paras....

chopper6 wrote: »

You're privvy to who passes SAS selection are you?

Oh i forgot...you've served in the Paras :rolleyes:

BTW - how do you know who has or hasn't passed UK Special Forces Selection?

......and are you going to answer my questions above, at post #83, or just ignore them?

chopper6

cruasder777 wrote: »

Yes I am.

Never have I said I served with the Parachute regiment:rolleyes:

You said you passed P-Coy and that you had the right to wear the maroon beret.

Jawgap

chopper6 wrote: »

You said you passed P-Coy and that you had the right to wear the maroon beret.

In fairness I think he only ever claimed to have done it, rather than passed it

Here's a post he managed not to go back and re-edit......

cruasder777 wrote: »

No military experience ?

I will scan some pics when I get the chance of me at 17 doing P coy, tabbing up pen-y-fen and some of me in the Croatian civil war.


What have you done ?

BTW - did you ever get your printer / scanner fixed ?

chopper6

Jawgap wrote: »

In fairness I think he only ever claimed to have done it, rather than passed it

Here's a post he managed not to go back and re-edit......



BTW - did you ever get your printer / scanner fixed ?

There was a Croatian Civil war?

Manic Moran

you know, this is going nowhere.